|
God, Thorfinn, you're making me itch to go read the collected Federalist Papers - and I should, as I have never read them all.
Yes, Scalia was right. The whole point is to protect the minority- the majority needs no protection.
And, the point about the Bill of Rights from #84 is also well-taken. But, perhaps the "we think there should be powers AND limitations because the gov't will abuse any gray areas" were right after all - because the government has and does place limits on the press. Without the specific no-no's detailed, I think these days we'd be in a heap of trouble.
While this debate is great, it is pointless, though. You mention our paradigm today, and we should keep it in mind. Our world would absolutely collapse if we untied all government agencies today. Sure, by the time our kids are grown anarchy may have ended, but you catch my drift.
Let me mention this. It is easily true that our Founding Fathers (FF's) were generally wealthy landowners, and that they wrote a "representative republic" that while ingenious also has some underlying assumptions - such as wealthy white landowners are and should remeain in power. (Wasn't there heated debate on making land ownership a prerequisite to voting?) And, there are a great many who wisely argue the Constitution upholds this structure.
Now, as much as we may elevate these personas on a moral and intellectual pedestal, there were just people trying to craft a government the way they saw fit. ALong about the time Jackson came into office, there was a strong "everyman" movement. During his tenure as president, there was a great vision shift regarding our government, and the will of the majority got a real foothold that has never gone away. Some say Jackson himself caused this (his arrival at the White House is infamous), others say it was just the American collective conscious at the time. I do not know all the specifics of this (as my readings on the era are limited), but I am sure you know about what I'm referring to.
Now my question is this: Were we better off being less majority-will-driven and being more firmly rooted to the representative republic model?
This only vaguely relates to the discussion, but I think it is important to realize what sort of system the FF's were trying to set up, and how one particular era in history changed the vision of that system. It is then important to ask which is better.
__________________
 
|